Ben and Matt, So what is the best length for the rod?
Thanks, Roger Nulton From: pickycat95 Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 9:36 AM To: [email protected] Subject: {S-Scale List} Re: Reducing Slack in Kadee S Scale Couplers - see attached I've been taking time between layouts after our move to upgrade cars including reducing slack in the 802s by the method included in the instructions. The rod inside the spring restricts the side-to-side action of the coupler. I think the amount of the restriction depends upon the length of the rod and if the rod is too short then there is no reduction in the back-and-forth slack or the reduction in slack is not worth the effort. Assembling the couplers with the rod in the spring is yet another learned art of eye-hand coordination. Those little rods just love to slide out of the spring if you tip it the wrong way from the bench to the coupler box. Testing coupled cars with the reduced slack on Lionel's AF FastTrack curve has not revealed a problem with restricted side-to-side. My first field test of the modified couplers was on Ken's layout with the 24 coal porters. It was great to see the train start without all the slack and the associated noise. Ben Trousdale --- In mailto:S-Scale%40yahoogroups.com, "richgajnak" <rustytraque@...> wrote: > > > I started to double up the centering springs about a year ago. It seems to > reduce the slack bouncy-bouncy quite a bit with no ill effects. I don't know > if it affects the magnetic uncoupling, I only do manual uncoupling. > > Rich G(ajnak) > > > --- In mailto:S-Scale%40yahoogroups.com, North Stratford <nsrc119@> wrote: > > > > Group, > > According to the instructions packaged with Kadee couplers, it is possible > > to reduce/eliminate the slack action, see attached illustration. > > > > Thanks, > > Matt Hogan > > >
